The British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, the story goes, was asked by a clergyman what we might learn about God from studying the creation. Haldane replied that, "He has an inordinate fondness for beetles."
I've always considered that good theology. Dr. Joseph Sheldon would probably disagree. Sheldon, an entomologist who was a professor of biology at my alma mater when I was a student, shares the divine enthusiasm for beetles and doesn't see anything "inordinate" about it.
On April 28 of this year, Doc Sheldon testified before the House Committee on Resources in Washington at a hearing on H.R. 2933, a bill "To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to reform the process for designating critical habitat under that Act." (For "amend" and "reform," read: "weaken" and "render impotent.")
Sheldon tells the story of his testimony at the hearing in the Summer 2004 issue of Creation Care magazine. (This issue isn't online yet.)
Sheldon reports that a senior staffer of the committee had called him and "expressed the concern of several members of the committee and asked if I would be willing to testify against the bill from a Christian perspective."
The fact that Doc Sheldon was called on for such a task gives me some hope that, even now, some members of Congress take their responsibilities seriously. But whatever hope that fact inspires is overwhelmed by the dismal description of how his testimony was actually received.
Sheldon was the last of 14 speakers scheduled to testify:
As the hours of testimony passed it became obvious that the deck had been heavily stacked in favor of the bill. … Most individuals giving testimony were clearly from the "pro-development" camp. Complaints were raised about the restrictions on motorboat speed in Florida designed to protect the Florida manatee. Manatees were described as being as abundant as fleas on a dog's back. Another spoke of habitat restrictions to protect a fly that no one could find. Fly swatting was the joke of the hour. … No testimonies, however, focused on the importance of the Endangered Species Act, its essential role in preserving species, and the significance of adequate critical habitat for recovery.
I kept asking myself, "Is this the committee that is charged with managing our natural resources to provide a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren?" Their "strategic planning" for the future appeared to be less concerned about long-term ecological sustainability than short-term economic gain and restrictions on personal freedom. Several times different representatives stated the need to have the ESA based on the best available science. If that is the view of the members of the Committee on Resources, then why were there essentially no voices from the scientific community addressing the necessary habitat requirements for species recovery? …
Doc Sheldon was the only scientist invited to testify, and he had been asked to focus on the religious basis for species preservation. He compliments Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.V., for defending the ESA against any attempt to weaken it, but his description of the rest of the committee shows that our nation's natural resources have been placed in the charge of an indifferent, irresponsible and willfully ignorant group of men:
One Representative asked for my views on evolution/creation. His question had nothing to do with my testimony or H.R. 2933. I responded that God was the Creator. I did not attempt to specify how God did it.
The defense of the Endangered Species Act is vitally important, yet its still pretty far down my list of what's at stake in this election. And on a practical level, I don't guess that there are many votes to be won by campaigning for the defense of endangered species — even if one notes, as Doc Sheldon does, that their health and survival is inextricably connected with our own.
I'm repeating this story here because it illustrates what is at stake more broadly. The people now in charge are irresponsible, unaccountable men interested only in "short-term economic gain" with no consideration of consequences, justice, science or the actual facts of the matter in the world around them. They make a show of religion, but only in an attempt to undermine the very values that religion teaches. They speak of the "best available science" and of the "best available intelligence" while ignoring the scientific and intelligence communities.
They are careless people — they smash up things and creatures and then retreat back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it is that keeps them together.
They need to be stopped, replaced, shown the door. America desperately needs a new Committee on Resources — one that is actually concerned about and interested in resources. America needs a National Security Council that is actually concerned about national security. America needs an Office of Management and Budget that actually manages and budgets.
Four more years of this carelessness is, to use a favorite word of Doc Sheldon's, unsustainable.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In